Judgment :- These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 21-7-1989, 8-10-1990 and 11-10-1990 and made herein and the records relevant to the prayer aforesaid on the file of the respondents in each petition comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the Writs made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of the Advocate-General for Mr. K.P.H. Thulasiraman, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. 15457 to 15459/90 and 15970 to 15974/90 and of Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. 9515/89 and of Mr. K. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents in W.P. Nos. 15457 to 15459/90 and 15970 to 15974/90 and for the 1st Respondent in W.P. No. 9515 of 1989 the Court made the following order :- 2.All these writ petitions have been filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for the issue of writ ofcertiorarified Mandamusto quash the order dated 16-10-1989 as confirmed by the Appellate Order dated 29-12-1989 and to direct the first respondent to dispose of the Appeal on merits, waiving the pre-deposit of any amount whatsoever. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows: It is stated that eight Superintending Engineers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board-in-charge of eight different distribution systems were said to have manufactured and cleared RCC poles without observing the Central Excise formalities. It was alleged that the activities of the Superintending Engineers fall within the word "manufacture" as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and that the RCC poles are excisable goods. After issuing show-cause notice, orders were passed on 28-12-1988 demanding excise duty in respect of the RCC poles manufactured and cleared during the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. The total amount of duty claimed in respect of all the eight cases comes to around Rs. 40 lakhs. The petitioner thereupon, filed appeals to the first respondent and pending disposal of the appeals, sought for waiver of the pre-deposit. By common order dated 16-10-1989, the first respondent directed the petitioner to pre-deposit in all the cases put together a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs on or before 29-12-1989. 40 lakhs. The petitioner thereupon, filed appeals to the first respondent and pending disposal of the appeals, sought for waiver of the pre-deposit. By common order dated 16-10-1989, the first respondent directed the petitioner to pre-deposit in all the cases put together a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs on or before 29-12-1989. The petitioner seems to have sought for modification of the said order on the ground of a subsequent judgment of the Tribunal at New Delhi holding that the Electricity Board will not be liable in such cases. The application for modification was dismissed on 29-12-1989 and on the ground that the pre-deposit has not been made, the appeals were dismissed on the very same day. It is against the said orders dated 16-10-1989 and 29-12-1989 that the writ petition have been filed. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the petitioners, has cited the decision of the Tribunal inKerala Electricity Boardv. CCE, Cochin 1989 (25) ECR 334 (Special Bench) holding that the Kerala Electricity Board under similar circumstances is not liable to pay excise duty. It is further brought to my notice that a Special Leave Petition filed against the said Judgment has been dismissed observing that the construction placed by the Tribunal is right and no duty is recoverable from the Electricity Board. On the basis of such aprima faciecase, learned Advocate General pleads that the requirement for a pre-deposit should have been dispensed with by the Tribunal. I admitted the writ petition on 8-10-1990 and directed the same to be posted for final disposal immediately after service of notice. Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appears for the respondent and submits that there is one other judgment of the Tribunal which is in favour of the department. But I have to reckon with the fact that the Tribunal's Judgment relied on by the petitioner has been approved by the Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal 140/89, dated 12-3-1990. Whatever (140/89) that may be, having regard to the facts of the case, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned Advocate General that the direction of pre-deposit Rs. 20 lakhs needs modification. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner may deposit a total sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as pre-deposit and on such deposit, the first respondent shall take up the appeals and hear them on merits and pass orders in accordance with law. 20 lakhs needs modification. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner may deposit a total sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as pre-deposit and on such deposit, the first respondent shall take up the appeals and hear them on merits and pass orders in accordance with law. The writ petitions are ordered in the above terms. The impugned orders are set aside. There will be no order as to costs.